On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
<ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones <thouis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io>
>> wrote:
>> > I have turned on issue tracking and started a few labels. Feel free to
>> > add
>> > more / adjust the names as appropriate. I am trying to find someone
>> > who
>> > can help manage the migration from Trac.
>>>> Are the github issues set up sufficiently for Trac to be disabled and
>> github to take over?
>>> You lost me here. You were going to set up a test site where we could see
> the Trac --> Github conversion could be tested, before actually pushing that
> conversion to the numpy Github repo. If you sent a message that that was
> ready, I must have missed it.
>> The current state of labels on https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues is also
> far from complete (no prios, components).
I wasn't completely clear. What I meant to ask:
"Are the github issues (and labels) set up well enough for Trac to be
disabled for accepting new bugs and to point users filing new bugs to
github instead?"
(The answer to which is "no", based on your reply).
I was under the impression that github issues could become the default
for new bugs even before the old bugs were moved, but perhaps I
misunderstood. I can see arguments for and against this. The primary
argument in favor is that it would be easier to transition old bugs to
a known set of labels, rather than trying to define the labels at the
same time as moving the bugs. (This is more a concern on my part
about stepping on toes than a difficulty in knowing what labels are
needed, though.)
Ray Jones